Calaveras agencies make strides after criticism

SAN ANDREAS - After getting slapped three months ago by the Calaveras County grand jury for squabbling with each other and delaying development of a plan for handling state prison inmates released to supervision, leaders of the county's criminal justice agencies now appear to be playing nice.

Comment

By Dana M. Nichols

recordnet.com

By Dana M. Nichols

Posted Jun. 23, 2013 at 12:01 AM

By Dana M. Nichols

Posted Jun. 23, 2013 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

SAN ANDREAS - After getting slapped three months ago by the Calaveras County grand jury for squabbling with each other and delaying development of a plan for handling state prison inmates released to supervision, leaders of the county's criminal justice agencies now appear to be playing nice.

The grand jury report issued in March found that the Community Corrections Partnership made up of law enforcement agencies, the courts, the District Attorneys Office, and other service agencies had bungled key tasks, making the county one of the last in California to come up with a plan.

Under the statewide criminal justice realignment that began in 2011, counties must supervise many criminals who would formerly have been in state prison or monitored by state parole agents.

Among the grand jury's criticisms were the way the county's top leaders treated each other. The jury said "insults, eye rolling and derisive laughter have rendered meetings inefficient and frequently unproductive."

The jury also found that various agencies were failing to share information freely with each other, or to meet as required to discuss the background and needs of specific criminals released to county supervision.

Three months later, the mood of those meetings and the relations between the agencies appear to be markedly different.

In the final report of the 2012-13 county grand jury, which was released Friday morning, representatives of those agencies said they agreed with the jury's criticisms and had already adopted the recommendations or were moving to do so.

Friday afternoon, the Community Corrections Partnership met to discuss how to achieve a major goal: developing measures acceptable to all involved to evaluate whether the county is meeting state requirements to reduce recidivism.

Gone were the raised voices and sarcasm that characterized meetings in 2011 and 2012. Instead, those at the meeting wrestled with how to even measure recidivism.

Mary Rose Rutikanga, an analyst hired by the county specifically for criminal justice realignment, said that most counties in California define recidivism as a new criminal conviction.

"I don't agree with that," said Capt. Ed Ballard, who oversees the Calaveras County Jail.

Ballard and other law enforcement officials, with their focus on protecting the public, believe recidivism includes a variety of harmful or criminal behaviors, whether they result in a new conviction.

For example, a parole or probation violation that results in a person returning to jail would be recidivism in Ballard's view.

The group also pondered whether arrests could be seen as evidence of recidivism.

District Attorney Barbara Yook pointed out that other factors than the behavior of criminals can change the number of arrests and, for that matter, convictions. If fewer sheriff deputies are working then there could be fewer arrests regardless of whether criminals have changed their behavior, she said.

Comparing recidivism rates to what they were before the state's criminal justice realignment is complicated because state parole agents who formerly watched state prison inmates after release and the various county probation departments that watch them now have their own approaches.

Rudy Haapanen, research director for criminal an juvenile justice at the University of California, Davis, Center for Human Services, is proposing a solution. Haapanen said he has been speaking with officials throughout the state about building a system to track the success or failure of criminals as they move through various county-run rehabilitation systems.

"To do that, we need to collect consistent information across the counties," Haapanen said Tuesday during a presentation to the county Community Corrections Partnership.

He said he'd be able to use graduate students at UC Davis to do some of the data collection and input work that overwhelmed county probation departments won't be able to do.

Paying for that might be a stumbling block. Haapanen said he hopes to have many counties pay a small portion of the $200,000 or so a year that he estimates it will take.

The Community Corrections Partnership on Friday tabled the discussion on whether to seek to cooperate with Haapanen.